been formed during the same period, anciently, than at present. But who knows what beds of this rock are now forming in the depths of the oceans, and who will know until they are elevated for the inspection of geologists? Conclusions from the above facts. From all the facts and circumstances thus stated, may we not draw the following inferences. First. That testaceous animals were originally created in great abundance, and in every part of the sea. Second. That these animals increased much more rapidly under the ardent heat of the ancient world, and attained much larger sizes, than at present. Third. That beds of shells were formed by the currents of the sea, and not by their accumulation upon each other, by natural increase. These inferences being admitted, may we not conclude, that it is possible, all the shell limestone which is known to exist, might have been formed by constant accumulations within the period of the nearly 2000 years, which have elapsed between the creation and the deluge. Secondary limestone not always formed of shells. It is not necessary, we should suppose, that all secondary limestone has been formed of shells, for we find that this process is constantly going on at the present day, by means of water containing carbonaceous particles. It has already been stated that the waters of San Filippo, formed strata of solid carbonate of lime at the rate of thirty feet in twenty years, and which, therefore, during the period above named, supposing the same process to continue, would form a mass of limestone 3000 feet thick, which would exceed any known limestone formation in depth. In various other places, similar depositions are forming. * It has also been stated in the preceding volume, that limestone containing shells, is now constantly accumulating at the delta of the Rhone in the Mediterranean. Large masses are continually taken up from that place, of arenaceous rocks, cemented by calcareous matter, including multitudes of shells, of recent species. A cannon was * Lyell's Geology, vol. i. p. 204. also discovered and taken up at the same place, imbedded in crystalline limestone.* The Coral islands and reefs, also exhibit vast accumulations of calcareous matter, which at the present day are constantly increasing. That on the coast of New Holland extends in an uninterrupted course to the length of 350 miles, and with others, form a continuous line of 1000 miles, in length, varying from twenty to sixty miles in breadth, and is probably from 1000 to 1500 feet in depth. This, if thrown up from the bottom of the sea, would form a mountain of organic limestone, of far greater extent than any now known to exist on the face of the earth.† Now this immense mass of organic calcareous matter has been forming only since the commencement of what geologists call" the present order of things," or since the sea has occupied its present bed, and which all agree was not at a very remote period, certainly not more than 6000 years ago, and yet this is acknowledged by geologists to be the most extensive range of organic mountains in exist"It far exceeds," says Dr. Macculloch, 66 any that are known in the extent of its range." ence. When such a formation is seen and known, or acknowledged, to be but of comparatively recent origin, why is it necessary, to suppose that other organic formations, which took place in the depths of the ocean, and of which we know nothing except by conjecture, should have required millions of years for their production? The truth is, that no man can prove at what period the ancient rocks were formed, by their appearance, or by any series of intrinsic circumstances attending them, nor can he show, with any degree of certainty, how long a period was required for their production. All agree that the organic rocks were formed under the waters of the ocean, and, therefore, that their growth was concealed from all observation. The few analogies that can be adduced of similar formations, seem to show that the lapse of many ages is not required, to produce extensive calcareous formations. Who knows what exists in the bottom of the ocean at the present day? or what geologist will deny that the elevation of a few square miles of land + See the preceding vol. p. 64. * Lyell's Geology, p. 234. from the middle of the Atlantic, might not entirely change all existing theories with respect to the age of the earth? Doctrine of sucesssive creations. The doctrine of a succession of creations, by which some writers have proposed to account for the organic relics which they suppose more ancient than those described in Genesis, is not only opposed to the implied meaning of scripture, as already noticed, but, if we are not mistaken, it contradicts one of the most important and interesting series of facts which geology has unfolded, and which we have taken especial pains to establish in the preceding pages, viz. that there exists, in the strata of the earth, a regular gradation of organic substances, from the lowest plants to the highest orders of animals, and that, in this respect, there is an exact coincidence between revelation and geology. Now, if there have been many successive and distinct creations, each creation must have been either of the same kind as that which took place before it, or of a different kind. If, for instance, the first creation was cryptogamous plants, of one species, and the second creation, plants of the same tribe, of another species, the first becoming extinct before the second came into existence; then we are to suppose that the soil and climate of the whole earth was every where the same, and that for thousands of years it was fitted for nothing but cryptogamia. This would only seem to show that one species was ordered out of existence, merely that another might be created, under precisely the same circumstances, and thus, that the Creator, for thousands of years, (if so long is required by the theorist,) occupied the earth only with the lowest vegetables. When plants of the higher orders came into existence, we have to suppose a recurrence of the same corresponding process; and so of the testacea, amphibia and mammalia, the earth being fitted for each class in succession, and no other, and that many species of each class were, alternately created, and permitted to go out of existence. That the doctrine of successive creations can be true on no other grounds, is shown by the well ascertained geological facts, above mentioned, viz: that the order in which organized remains occur in strata, from below upwards, is thus: cryptogamous plants, dicotyledonous plants, testacea, amphibia and mammalia. Now had different parts of the earth been prepared for each of these classes at the same time, or had a creation, at the same epoch, consisted of plants, testacea, amphibia and mammalia, the remains of these ought now to be found in series of strata, by themselves, and when these became extinct, to be followed by another series in the same manner; whereas we find, in truth, that the lower strata, never contain the relics of the more perfect animals, but only those of plants, shells, &c. The doctrine of successive creations, therefore, cannot be maintained as geologically true, unless we suppose that the lower orders only were created; then annihilated, and again replaced; and that the same law was followed with respect to the other orders of creation; for on no other hypothesis, will the several creations correspond with the succession of remains which the strata contain. This notion, if not ridiculous, is at least derogatory to the Wisdom and Power of the Creator. Does not reason as well as religion, therefore, dictate that before the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, are wrested from their plain and obvious meaning, (or from the sense in which they have been universally understood by the whole Christian world,) in order to adapt them to what have appeared to some, to be geological facts, that these facts should be more clearly established than they appear to be at present? Will it not be in time to change the meaning of Moses, when geology clearly shows, that, with all his inspiration, he was in an error? or, at least, until geologists agree with respect to the points in which he was mistaken? Still, we are entirely opposed to the suppression of any geological fact because it seems to bear against revelation. Let the whole truth come forth, in a fair and impartial manner, and if the scriptures cannot stand against it, let them fall. No truth is impious, nor will facts, in the light of the present age, ever convict their discoverer of heresy. We do not deny the remote antiquity of the earth; it was created at the "beginning" and, therefore, as formerly remarked, men may speculate with safety on the changes it suffered while "it was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep." Here, revelation is no guide with respect to time, and theorists may call millions of ages to their aid in accounting for the phenomena which the ancient world presented. But, from the period when plants and animals were created, we have a guide, at least, with respect to certain parts of the earth's history, which no one may contradict by mere inferences, and from which guide, no believer in revelation, can depart with propriety or safety. We have no room, at present, to notice the other reasons which have been brought to show the great antiquity of secondary strata, nor is this necessary, since they are chiefly predicated on grounds already examined. Opinions of Geologists with respect to the antiquity of the present form of the Earth. In concluding the subject of the Mosaic days, and the earth's antiquity, we will cite the opinions of two or three geological writers who appear to have carefully investigated these points. Dr. Ure. "We may," says Dr. Ure, "ask, why we should claim, in behalf of our globe, a more ancient origin than that assigned by the inspired chronologist? Will its rank, dignity, and importance, be enhanced by a remote genealogy? Is not this a taint of the pride of ancestry common to the whole family of man? But how can it be safely gratified? Even lynx-eyed science can pierce the dark veil of creation no further than common vision." Again, "it is to be regretted that any commentators of scripture, misled by the fancied necessity of certain geological schemes of stratiform superposition, should have vexed themselves and their readers, in torturing the Hebrew words for day, and evening, and morning, into many mystical renderings. That Moses attached no such vague meaning to the creative days in Genesis, is evident from the language of the fourth commandment in Exodus," "Six days shalt thou labor," &c.* Dr. Macculloch. Says Dr. Macculloch, "They who have attempted a conciliation, by altering the lengths of the periods, have taken an unnecessary, as well as an unwarrantable liberty of interpretation; since they thus wrest the plain words of scripture to their own evil purposes; * New System of Geology, p. 11. |